Comments on: The Sacred Idea of Progress

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:11:32 +0000

Outside of America I think ‘progress’ is still a viable idea. The EU is itself an idea of progress, albeit social, rather than technological. One measure of progress had been how many people are joining the ‘band wagon’, and certainly the size of the EU attests as a measure of political progress over the past 50 years.
As for Strong’s idea that ‘progress’ would be understood as taking steps to repair the damage done in prior eras, this idea would certainly fit the EU. But certainly the idea of progress as embodied in the EU is/has been challenged–eg. desires to retard the loss of national sovereignty.
But what if the idea of ‘progress’ was never sacred, then the issue should dissolve. Certainly, my understanding of the 19th century European history does not suggest an absolute faith in progress, as is commonly understood. One need only consider the Revolutions of 1848 and the reactionary politics which followed; or consider that the 19th century was one long recession followed by the Great Depression of 1873-1890 (a long disinflationary period). In some sense there was progress–i.e. nationalism, limited enfranchisement of the middle classes. In this sense the 19th century is better understood as a period of idealistic thinking and action. But progress cannot be said to have been unheld as sacred, nor universal.

By: Strong

Strong — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:09:58 +0000

I agree… modernity’s self-awareness has incorporated the dangers it poses to itself, and see Giddens, Beck, et al. I think maybe these days, in some circles, ‘progress’ would be understood as taking steps to repair the damage done in prior eras as they marched in time with their own notion of progress. I am not sure then that ‘progress’ is sacred these days — it is rather contested in these potentially pomo times.

However, I also think progress understood as ‘more comfortable lives’ is still alive and well. Progress means a better picture on your new flat screen, which makes Halo 3 or your Wii more fun. {Sidenote: I am convinced that flatscreen sales (across the industrial-retail spectrum, from airline seat tops to home entertainment centers) are the _only_ thing sustaining the world economy; thank god for Taiwan.} However, progress as ‘social justice’ or something along those lines is gone, and that notion becomes the object of the left melancholy that Wendy Brown has mentioned. Political progress (in the West) today seems mostly to be about securing individual liberties, themselves best expressed through activity that ultimately leads to material comfort… Someday, we will all drive VW SUVs powered by some hybrid drive type technology, with little TVs for the kids to watch in the back seats, and that can park themselves! (I saw a commercial for one of these today at lunch.)

By: Kerim

Kerim — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:27:14 +0000

Good question. For one thing, in the nuclear age we are much more sanguine about the downsides and dangers of modernity. Also, the postmodern view of progress is tinged with irony and nostalgia for yesterday’s visions of the future. I think much of the hype surrounding the internet is based in the hope that a new, more human, vision of progress will replace the old one. But is this view “sacred” – probably not.

I cut off the last line of that quote, and I think it is probably worth putting back in. It reads: “Even the peoples most enamored of free thinking tend to place one principle above discussion and regard it as untouchable, in other words, sacred: the principle of free discussion itself.” Although not universally true, I’d say that this principle is still just as sacred in the “Euro-American imaginary.”

By: Strong

Strong — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:01:10 +0000

Do you think Kerim that ‘progress’ continues to occupy this sacred position in the Euro-American imaginary?